5 ms·

Fanboying Elon on the twitter deal of all things is just hilarious. He paid $44B with no diligence for a company with hardly a billion worth of revenue, stagnat

Fanboying Elon on the twitter deal of all things is just hilarious. He paid $44B with no diligence for a company with hardly a billion worth of revenue, stagnating growth, a last-generation social graph, an incredibly toxic userbase, and a very demoralized staff--and he has no plan for how to fix it either. This will go down as one of the worst deals in history and here you are saying "but Starlink".

reducesuffering 4y ago
> hardly a billion worth of revenue Where do you pull these numbers out of? Twitter's yearly revenue was $5.2 billion. If you're so off base for the objective metric, want to guess how off you are on the rest of your opinion?
1123581321 4y ago
What are the generations of social graphs?
- crazygringo 4y ago
  If that's a serious question, it's something like: 1) Friendster 2) MySpace 3) Facebook 4) Twitter 5) Instagram 6) TikTok Obviously the exact list is a matter of opinion, but Twitter is definitely not current-generation, I think everyone can agree on that. Here, have fun exploring when each one was "born" and therefore its generation: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=twitter,tiktok,instagram https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=t...
  - 1123581321 4y ago
    It was a serious question. I thought you were talking about the organizing computer science or social principle of the network but it seems you just meant the age the company was founded or became popular, which is unremarkable. Sorry to bother you.
    - crazygringo 4y ago
      I'm not the person you originally responded to, I was just clarifying what seemed to be the meaning. But to say the generations are unremarkable isn't quite true -- the whole point is that previous generations are generally stagnant in growth, unlike the newest generation(s) that are still growing. This is a very valid factor in why investing in TikTok might be a smart idea while investing in Twitter is... not.
      - 1123581321 4y ago
        Ah, sorry. Yes, there is certainly some value in thinking about the age of the company. But it’s also so strsightforward that I wouldn’t have asked about if it they’d used less ambiguous wording. And I’m a little disappointed that I wasn’t able to be pointed to a cool research paper or something. :) I appreciate you clarifying for them; I like to do similarly on HN when I see two people missing each other’s meanings.

reducesuffering 4y ago

> hardly a billion worth of revenue Where do you pull these numbers out of? Twitter's yearly revenue was $5.2 billion. If you're so off base for the objective metric, want to guess how off you are on the rest of your opinion?

1123581321 4y ago

What are the generations of social graphs?

crazygringo 4y ago
If that's a serious question, it's something like: 1) Friendster 2) MySpace 3) Facebook 4) Twitter 5) Instagram 6) TikTok Obviously the exact list is a matter of opinion, but Twitter is definitely not current-generation, I think everyone can agree on that. Here, have fun exploring when each one was "born" and therefore its generation: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=twitter,tiktok,instagram https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=t...
- 1123581321 4y ago
  It was a serious question. I thought you were talking about the organizing computer science or social principle of the network but it seems you just meant the age the company was founded or became popular, which is unremarkable. Sorry to bother you.
  - crazygringo 4y ago
    I'm not the person you originally responded to, I was just clarifying what seemed to be the meaning. But to say the generations are unremarkable isn't quite true -- the whole point is that previous generations are generally stagnant in growth, unlike the newest generation(s) that are still growing. This is a very valid factor in why investing in TikTok might be a smart idea while investing in Twitter is... not.
    - 1123581321 4y ago
      Ah, sorry. Yes, there is certainly some value in thinking about the age of the company. But it’s also so strsightforward that I wouldn’t have asked about if it they’d used less ambiguous wording. And I’m a little disappointed that I wasn’t able to be pointed to a cool research paper or something. :) I appreciate you clarifying for them; I like to do similarly on HN when I see two people missing each other’s meanings.